At 4/28/2009 7:30:20 PM, Volkov wrote:Ah, how many Democratic senators are there now?

I guarantee this was a manouver made by the Dems to grab more senate seats so they could have that filibuster-proof majority of 60.

They'd have it anyway. Specter was already on their side of the isle votewise. It's a maneuver so they can pretend they convinced someone away instead of planting a mole :).

That makes a sad kind of sense from a voter's perspective, but just a good strategy from a politicians.

I know the Americam Senate is different from Canada's, but do you have senators crossing the floor to sit as 'Independent Democrat', 'Independent Republican', stuff like that? Seems like a safer bet than switching parties automatically, you don't lose your voters confidence if you sit as a 'Independent blank', but you're not tied down to any party lines specifically. But then again its a little different for me to understand, since we don't elect our Senate.

At 4/28/2009 7:30:20 PM, Volkov wrote:Ah, how many Democratic senators are there now?

I guarantee this was a manouver made by the Dems to grab more senate seats so they could have that filibuster-proof majority of 60.

They'd have it anyway. Specter was already on their side of the isle votewise. It's a maneuver so they can pretend they convinced someone away instead of planting a mole :).

That makes a sad kind of sense from a voter's perspective, but just a good strategy from a politicians.

I know the Americam Senate is different from Canada's, but do you have senators crossing the floor to sit as 'Independent Democrat', 'Independent Republican', stuff like that?

I'm not an expert on congressional procedure, but no, there's nowhere in the middle to sit:http://www.senate.gov...BUT.... Joe Lieberman, when he couldn't get his party's nomination, actually ran as an "Independent Democrat" a few years back, actually received the Republican endorsement (the Republican candidate lost their endorsement to him), won the election, is listed as that nonexistent party, and is a member of the "Senate Democratic Caucus" but hasn't attended it's party meetings or policy lunches since he endorsed Mccain, despite usually voting with Democrats on any non-national-security issue. Bernie Sanders von Vermont Socialism is also an Independent caucusing withe the Democrats.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 4/28/2009 7:30:20 PM, Volkov wrote:Ah, how many Democratic senators are there now?

I guarantee this was a manouver made by the Dems to grab more senate seats so they could have that filibuster-proof majority of 60.

They'd have it anyway. Specter was already on their side of the isle votewise. It's a maneuver so they can pretend they convinced someone away instead of planting a mole :).

That makes a sad kind of sense from a voter's perspective, but just a good strategy from a politicians.

I know the Americam Senate is different from Canada's, but do you have senators crossing the floor to sit as 'Independent Democrat', 'Independent Republican', stuff like that? Seems like a safer bet than switching parties automatically, you don't lose your voters confidence if you sit as a 'Independent blank', but you're not tied down to any party lines specifically. But then again its a little different for me to understand, since we don't elect our Senate.

Why Specter did not go independent or run as an independent is simple, money. He needs the funding to win his race regardless of party. Just seems like politicians have no values or principles these days.

At 4/29/2009 4:51:03 AM, Lawsonishere wrote:Why Specter did not go independent or run as an independent is simple, money. He needs the funding to win his race regardless of party. Just seems like politicians have no values or principles these days.

That may be one of the reasons but I think the Dems would have wanted him to come over as well, they're looking for anyone they can get. They have two independents and one Democratic-senator-in-waiting in Minnesota, which on top of the 57 Dem senators already there including our friend Specter here, that makes 60. Dems have a filibuster proof majority!What that means is that gay marriage can now be approved federally, and the Republicans have no way to stop it.

At 4/29/2009 4:51:03 AM, Lawsonishere wrote:Why Specter did not go independent or run as an independent is simple, money. He needs the funding to win his race regardless of party. Just seems like politicians have no values or principles these days.

That may be one of the reasons but I think the Dems would have wanted him to come over as well, they're looking for anyone they can get. They have two independents and one Democratic-senator-in-waiting in Minnesota, which on top of the 57 Dem senators already there including our friend Specter here, that makes 60. Dems have a filibuster proof majority!What that means is that gay marriage can now be approved federally, and the Republicans have no way to stop it.

I don't think gay marriage will pass considering 64 percent of the people are against it. Plus theres many blue dog democrats who would not dare vote yes for gay marriage.

At 4/29/2009 7:03:14 AM, Lawsonishere wrote:I don't think gay marriage will pass considering 64 percent of the people are against it. Plus theres many blue dog democrats who would not dare vote yes for gay marriage.

On such a controversial issue I suppose you are right. When Canada was passing our same-sex marriage legislation, blue Liberals voted against the bill as well. I guess it depends on how much party discipline Obama or whoever it is that actually runs the party in the Senate (I'm guessing the Senate majority leader) enforces.

At 4/29/2009 8:34:24 AM, Lawsonishere wrote:thats debatle tho. Party discipline seems like a common practise to me for most politicians in Washington. Give or take 4 or 5 moderates on each side.

You're equivocating. "Party discipline" here means you'll get yelled at by pundits, maybe lose a few cosponsorships or whatever. In parliamentary countries,"party discipline," with few exceptions, means you're probably booted out of the party.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 4/29/2009 3:37:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:You're equivocating. "Party discipline" here means you'll get yelled at by pundits, maybe lose a few cosponsorships or whatever. In parliamentary countries,"party discipline," with few exceptions, means you're probably booted out of the party.

That is basically it. If you cross your party leader or vote against them in the House on a confidence vote or when they actually asked you to vote this way, you're suspended from the caucus and sit as an independent. I'm guessing Americans don't do this.

Why are you claiming that Specter has no principles or values simply because he switched parties?

As R&R noted, he was a moderate, so it isn't as if he was compromising his positions to switch from being a moderate republican to a moderate democrat. IT isn't as if he is going to alter his voting just because he switched..

At 4/30/2009 2:15:32 PM, JBlake wrote:Why are you claiming that Specter has no principles or values simply because he switched parties?

As R&R noted, he was a moderate, so it isn't as if he was compromising his positions to switch from being a moderate republican to a moderate democrat. IT isn't as if he is going to alter his voting just because he switched..

He was going to lose the republican primary which would end his god given right to be in the senate. He did this before he was a democrat who switched for so called incentives. He will probably lose the democratic primary regardless unless Reid shows him the money. If you think he has principles just simply watch his news conference.

At 4/30/2009 6:48:33 PM, Lawsonishere wrote:He was going to lose the republican primary which would end his god given right to be in the senate. He did this before he was a democrat who switched for so called incentives. He will probably lose the democratic primary regardless unless Reid shows him the money. If you think he has principles just simply watch his news conference.

I don't think any of them believe they have a 'God-given' right to be in the US Senate, as it is all elected and they know simply they may be kicked out. Besides, its not a 'lack of morality', he was a moderate and he knew he was going to lose the primary, and the Democrats needed him so he switched. Its called politics, and it would happen any time in any democracy in any country.He won't lose the Dem primary either; he has no opponent.

At 4/30/2009 6:48:33 PM, Lawsonishere wrote:He was going to lose the republican primary which would end his god given right to be in the senate. He did this before he was a democrat who switched for so called incentives. He will probably lose the democratic primary regardless unless Reid shows him the money. If you think he has principles just simply watch his news conference.

I don't think any of them believe they have a 'God-given' right to be in the US Senate, as it is all elected and they know simply they may be kicked out. Besides, its not a 'lack of morality', he was a moderate and he knew he was going to lose the primary, and the Democrats needed him so he switched. Its called politics, and it would happen any time in any democracy in any country.He won't lose the Dem primary either; he has no opponent.

we shall see about the democratic primary. You don't seem to understand that elected officials especially those in congress are suppose to represent the people. Its politics at its best i guess.

At 4/30/2009 7:38:49 PM, Lawsonishere wrote:You don't seem to understand that elected officials especially those in congress are suppose to represent the people. Its politics at its best i guess.

I understand it full well, as I am very involved with my own politics. If people do not wish Specter to be their congressman, then they shall vote him out; if they do, then he will stay, regardless of party. Its often as well that politicians can get by just on the fact that they do a good job representing the people, regardless of what party they represent, even if its in enemy territory. I invite you to look up David Kilgour, as my prime example of this.

At 4/30/2009 7:38:49 PM, Lawsonishere wrote:You don't seem to understand that elected officials especially those in congress are suppose to represent the people. Its politics at its best i guess.

I understand it full well, as I am very involved with my own politics. If people do not wish Specter to be their congressman, then they shall vote him out; if they do, then he will stay, regardless of party. Its often as well that politicians can get by just on the fact that they do a good job representing the people, regardless of what party they represent, even if its in enemy territory. I invite you to look up David Kilgour, as my prime example of this.

Money wins elections only because it helps candidates get out their image or platform more. So while yes, money helps you win elections, it only helps you promote the things that are crucial to win elections. Not everyone needs money either.

Again, I invite you to look up someone, this time Andre Arthur. All you need is an image and an effective medium for getting your point out, and you will win (obviously of course if people actually agree with that opinion).

Again, I invite you to look up someone, this time Andre Arthur. All you need is an image and an effective medium for getting your point out, and you will win (obviously of course if people actually agree with that opinion).

I tend to agree with that opinion. I think you give the average voter way to much credit though. Although Canada may have a better intelligence per capita than America. I'll check those politicians out and tell you what I think.

At 5/1/2009 3:31:54 PM, Lawsonishere wrote:Canada has some interesting politicians for sure. Volkov how do you feel about socialism in Canada?

I'm in support of it, but I also advocate free trade.

The way I see it, Canada's socialist systems (nationalized health care, welfare, equalization payments, etc) need improvements of course, but they have provided and survived well for many years.Like for instance, I think a mix of public and private medical institutions are probably a better way to go, but we need our emphasis on public health care because of the results we've seen since it was initiated in the 1960's under Lester B. Pearson. Along the same lines, welfare needs improvement due to the high rate of abuse, and equalization payments between the provinces need to become more streamlined. But in the end, I believe its better we have these institutions and programs with all their flaws, rather than not have them at all.Canada also has a history of socialism, as our two largest provinces - Ontario and Quebec, but Quebec especially - are comparable to New York and Massachusetts in the US. It has just been the natural evolution of Canadian society that it has become more socialist over the decades. We still have not given up on our free trade and our capitalist ideals though, we just prefer to have more of a mix.

At 4/28/2009 7:20:49 PM, Lawsonishere wrote:Wow changing parties to get re elected. Any of you see a problem with this?

He has conservative views on crime, gun control and national security, voting to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito during President George W. Bush's second term; at the same time, he holds liberal views on abortion rights, immigration, and the environment. In April 2006, he was selected by Time as one of America's Ten best Senators.